Impact Of Csr On Human Rights Abuses Essay

Corporations are encouraged to conduct their activities in an ethically responsible manner, however neither the corporate world nor academia has produced a single – all encompassing definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The basic problem is that there are too many self-serving definitions that often lean toward the specific interests of the entities involved (Van Marrewijk, 2003). There has even been a quantitative study conducted on the many definitions of the term (Dahlsrud, 2006).

The purpose of this essay is to research the notion of CSR and uncover its true framework and outline what social responsibility truly means to corporate organisations, and whether it should be seriously considered to be a legitimate addition to the corporate framework of an organisation.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is something that affects all companies and should be an active factor in the company’s decision making. It is something all corporations need to care about. CSR is when business’ or corporations take part in an initiative or campaign for a cause that will benefit society and/or in some way make the world a better place (Taylor, 2015). Initially, Corporate Social Responsibility started to take shape around the 1950’s, but some say that it dates all the way back to the 1800s, the idea of CSR was seen (Carroll, 2007). One may think that because it is dated so long ago, it doesn’t have an important impact today nevertheless, it is proven that Corporate Social Responsibility is a pathway for entities to self benefit as they are in the process of benefitting society.

In this article, “The Truth About CSR,” authors Rangan, Chase and Karim stress the importance in aligning a company’s social and environmental activities with its business purpose and values (Rangan, Chase, & Karim, 2015, 41). Outcomes of CSR programs should be a “spillover” and not a primary focus of a business, expressing concern towards social responsibility and corporations failing to contribute to society accordingly (Rangan, Chase, Karim, 2015, 42). There is a great deal of importance in companies refocusing their CSR activities on a primary goal and in providing an organized process for bringing consistency and discipline to CSR strategies (42). Rangan, Chase and Karim want corporations to understand why it is important for them to evaluate their CSR activities and refocus them towards the goal of reinforcing the firm’s societal and environmental actions, while also ensuring their actions add to the overall purpose and values of the corporation. According to the authors, even though

Both the definitions given highlight the “voluntary” part of the actions taken by firms, those which go beyond law requirements, and from this starting point Matten and Moon (Matten & Moon 2008a) define two types of CSR, “implicit” and “explicit”. Implicit CSR reflects the actions taken by the firms to respond to formal and informal institutions for society’s interest, and consists of values, norms, and rules which result in requirements for corporations. Explicit CSR describes corporate activities that assume responsibility for the interests of society. They normally consist of voluntary programs and strategies by corporations which combine social and business value and address issues perceived as being part of the social responsibility of the company, often in response to local communities or Non-Governmental Organizations’ pressures (NGO) (Matten & Moon 2008b).

The purpose of this essay is to research the notion of CSR and uncover its true framework and outline what social responsibility truly means to corporate organisations, and whether it should be seriously considered to be a legitimate addition to the corporate framework of an organisation.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become the corporate buzzword. There are as many perspectives on CSR as are multitude of companies, thinkers and experts. It has evolved majorly over the last few decades in a big way and opinions vary on what CSR actually means and what it doesn’t. At a general level it is seen to include the responsibilities of firms beyond simply contributing to economic growth, and focuses on environmental and societal concerns. As a result of the increased attention around this concept, a variety of tools and guidelines to help companies implement and report on CSR activities have been

For many years, researchers held that the core responsibility of a corporation was to provide shareholders with financial returns. Carroll (1979) proposed that organizations have other types of responsibilities towards the society. In Carroll’s view, at some stage society has economic, legal, ethical, and other expectations. The essential part of Carroll’s definition of CSR is that a company has four primary responsibilities: to be profitable, observe the law, be ethical, and conduct discretionary activities. Drawing on those four responsibilities Carroll (1991) created a four-level pyramid of CSR and stated that the CSR policy of a company must include all of them. Carroll placed the economic responsibilities at the base of the pyramid, since for a company to operate successfully, it must have a financial return. On the second level were the legal responsibilities which in order to be fulfilled corporations must pursue their economic objectives (Carroll, 1991). Placing the economic and legal responsibilities at the bottom of the pyramid was reasonable because those two are fundamental for a company to be successful. The ethical responsibilities were placed on the third level of the pyramid suggesting that organizations ought to conduct their businesses operations in a fair and appropriate way and ought to protect the stakeholders’ moral rights (Carroll, 1991).

First, what is CSR? CSR is corporate social responsibility, which “refers to business practices involving initiatives that benefit society. A business 's CSR can encompass a wide variety of tactics, from giving away a portion of a company 's proceeds to charity, to implementing "greener" business operations” (Sammi Caramela). “Corporate social responsibility is a corporation’s initiative to assess and take responsibility for the company’s effects on environmental and social wellbeing. The term generally applies to efforts that go beyond what may be required by regulators or environmental protection groups” (Corporate Social Responsibility).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a concept that has been around for well over 50 years, has become prominent again recently. Peter Utting (2005) notes that an increasing number of transnational corporations (TNCs) and large domestic companies, supported by business and industry associations, are adopting a variety of so-called voluntary CSR initiatives that incorporate, for example, ‘codes of conduct; measures to improve environmental management systems and occupational health and safety; company ‘triple bottom line’ reporting on financial, social, and environmental aspects; participation in certification and labeling schemes; dialogue with stakeholders and partnerships with NGOs and UN agencies; and increased support for community development projects and programes’. The revival of CSR is reflected also in its recent prominence in public debate. CSR has also generated a very extensive literature in recent times. For example, a search on Google Scholar for the phrase ‘corporate social responsibility’ produced 12,500 citations. A more general search of the internet on Google for the phrase ‘corporate social responsibility’ produced 12,900,000 results. A general search for the phrase ‘corporate social responsibility’ on Australian sites produced 97,800 hits. This research paper is a conceptual paper regarding CSR consists the introduction, historical background of CSR, arguments in favour and against CSR also consisting the impact of CSR on performance of

Corporate social responsibility spans across the globe, but different countries see and participate in CSR in different ways. Amerinda Forte, author of “Corporate Social Responsibility in the United States and Europe: How Important Is It? The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility,” an article published in 2013 in the International Business and Economics Research Journal, explains CSR using three traditional models: the shareholder value model where profits are the sole responsibilities of the business, the stakeholder model where the social responsibilities of the business reflect those of the stakeholders, and the business ethics model where businesses have social obligations and a moral duty to society as a business. The author

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been a relevant subject within businesses since the early 1980’s where the concept of managing an organisation with an ethical, trans-parent and humane framework, which is critical in the development and the sustainable growth of any company (Marrewijk, 2003).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined by Carroll as being split into four possibilities,”it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and Philanthropic” (Visser. W, 2005). Economic responsibilities is defined as being for profit purposes, managers focus is purely on the outcome of the business and the shareholders, there is

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept whereby organizations consider the wellbeing of the public by taking responsibility for the effect of their actions on all stakeholders; customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in every aspect of their operations. This responsibility is seen to extend beyond the statutory obligation to comply with legislation and sees organizations willingly undertaking additional steps to improve the quality of life for employees and their families as well as for the local community and society at large.

Historical background of the development of CSR is almost as important as the ongoing discussion on what CSR is and how and where it should operate. Many scholars argue that these are not interchangeable and need to be assessed in conjunction with each other. For purposes of this paper it is pivotal to look into the past to see what stood behind the broadening of companies’ accountability beyond the standard agency theory (limited liability of shareholders for the company’s violations or breach and the company’s main accountability being towards its shareholders and investors only) to the stakeholder theory (company’s accountability towards a broad range of stakeholders, including employees, environment and local communities).